BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

section 154 of the Act, the counsel for the assessee had advised that it is necessary to challenge the orders passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in quantum proceedings. Hence, on such advice, the assessee has filed these appeals. 5. At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel appearing for the assesse has submitted, based on a complaint lodged

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

section 154 of the Act, the counsel for the assessee had advised that it is necessary to challenge the orders passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in quantum proceedings. Hence, on such advice, the assessee has filed these appeals. 5. At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel appearing for the assesse has submitted, based on a complaint lodged

SATYAMURTI RAMASUNDAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon [briefly ‘the Assessing Officer”] has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income

TANSA TRUST,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Tansa Trust, Vs Acit (Cpc), C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Post Bag No.2, Electronic City B-60/61, Naraina Industrial Area, Post Office, Phase Ii, Bangalore. New Delhi – 110 028. Pragun Finance Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aaatt0504A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vasanti Patel, Ca & Shri M.A. Gohel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

section 154 application on similar issues got dismissed by the CIT (Appeal). While issues of filing appeal before the ITAT in the case of Associate Trust was being discussed, the appellant was asked by the consultant to prefer appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) also. Based on these facts, it was claimed that the delay in filing appeal

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

ABHISHEK MALHOTRA ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-73(1), DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee are disposed off and the Appeal filed by the assessee

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Page 3 of 10 Abhishek Malhotra vs. AO 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a practicing advocate and filed TDS returns belatedly for various quarters in Financial Year 2013-14 & 2014-15. The CPC, Bangalore, issued intimations charging late

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

7. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to remove the defect of filing the return without payment of self assessment tax, for which a defect notice in terms of section 139(9) of the Act was duly issued by the learned AO on 29.10.2015. The assessee sought time from the ld AO to make payment

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

7. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to remove the defect of filing the return without payment of self assessment tax, for which a defect notice in terms of section 139(9) of the Act was duly issued by the learned AO on 29.10.2015. The assessee sought time from the ld AO to make payment

FASHION DESIGN COUNCIL OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE (EXEMP) 1(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as infructuous

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediafashion Design Council Of Vs. Acit India Circle (Exemp) 1(1) 209, Near Modi Flour Mill, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, New Delhi-110 020

7. The learned DR for the Revenue did not offer any fresh comment and relied upon the first appellate order in this regard. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The correctness of upward adjustment on account of ‘contingent liabilities on the basis of Tax Audit Report for the purposes of drawing

MEDSAVE HEALTH INSURANCE TPA LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT,CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

section 200A should be rectified sue moto but the same has not been done. 5. Left with no choice we are filing this appeal with a request to condone the delay on the ground mentioned above." 8.2. The Ld. Commissioner by considering the delay period and contentions of the Assessee, declined to condone the delay in filling of such appeals

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

154 of PB) income Rs. 4,16,63,400/- raising a tax demand of Rs. 1,61,99,640/- 2A 20.12.2023 Appeal filed by the assessee against the above intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 338 days 3. 28.02.2025 CIT(A) passed his order not condoning the (page

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

154 of PB) income Rs. 4,16,63,400/- raising a tax demand of Rs. 1,61,99,640/- 2A 20.12.2023 Appeal filed by the assessee against the above intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 338 days 3. 28.02.2025 CIT(A) passed his order not condoning the (page

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

154 of the Act; (ii) appealable under section 246A of the Act; and (iii) deemed as notice of demand under section 156 of the Act. Further, as the intimation generated after proposed processing of TCS statement shall be deemed as a notice of demand under section 156 of the Act, the failure to pay the tax specified in the intimation

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

154 of the Act; (ii) appealable under section 246A of the Act; and (iii) deemed as notice of demand under section 156 of the Act. Further, as the intimation generated after proposed processing of TCS statement shall be deemed as a notice of demand under section 156 of the Act, the failure to pay the tax specified in the intimation

HUGHES COMTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

7) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act well in time. Later after 4 years and 07 months, the assessee filed first appeal against the processing order under section 143(1) 2 HCIL Comtel P. Ltd. of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay

SHRUTI AHUJA,HARYANA, INDIA vs. ITO WARD 2, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as infructuous

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

7. It is the case of the Revenue that in terms of Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, it is statutory obligation on the part of the assessee to file Form No.67 seeking claim of FTC within a time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act read with Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules

B R HOSPITAL AND RESARCH INSTITUTE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

delay in filing Form 10B rest with CIT (Exemptions) only and not with CIT(A) by relying on the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Association of India Panel Board Manufacturer (supra). 7. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the above said grounds before us, I observed that the assessee